AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 22840/93
by Icarus Daedalus Minos VAN EIS
against the Netherlands
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 2 March 1994, the following members being present:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President
H. DANELIUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 19 October 1993
by Icarus Deadalus Minos VAN EIS against the Netherlands and registered
on 29 October 1993 under file No. 22840/93;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1964 and at present
detained in a psychiatric institution at Enschede. He is represented
by Mr. Henri Seegers, a lawyer at Amsterdam.
The facts as presented by the applicant may be summarised as
follows.
On 17 May 1988, the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of
Haarlem sentenced the applicant for attempted manslaughter to one year
and six months' imprisonment and to subsequent placement at the
disposal of the authorities for the purpose of psychiatric treatment
(terbeschikkingstelling).
After the applicant had served his imprisonment, he was
transferred to a psychiatric institution. He absconded from that
institution but was arrested and brought back to the institution. As
a result of his absence from the institution, his first period of
internment expired on 24 November 1991.
On 4 December 1991, the Regional Court of Haarlem decided to
prolong the period of internment by one year, which meant that the
period expired on 24 November 1992. On 16 April 1992, this decision
was confirmed by the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of Arnhem.
On 14 October 1992, the public prosecutor submitted to the
Regional Court a request for a further prolongation of the period of
internment. On 22 October 1992, the Regional Court decided that the
request should be examined on 30 November 1992. Subsequent to the
hearing which was held on that day, the Regional Court decided, on
7 December 1992, to prolong the period of internment for another year.
In his appeal to the Court of Appeal, the applicant asked for the
decision of prolongation to be quashed on the ground that the Regional
Court had not examined the request for prolongation until after the
previous period of internment had ended.
In its decision of 8 June 1993 the Court of Appeal rejected the
appeal, stating as follows:
"The request for prolongation of the period of placement at
the disposal of the authorities was submitted to the registry of
the Regional Court of Haarlem on 14 October 1992. On 22 October
1992, the Regional Court decided that this request should be
dealt with on 30 November 1992, whereupon the decision appealed
against was rendered on 7 December 1992. The period of placement
at the disposal of the authorities expired on 24 November 1992.
The Court of Appeal considers that the request was
submitted on time and that the Regional Court took its decision
on the request within the time-limit laid down in Section 509 t,
first paragraph, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having
regard to the fact that, according to the provision in Section
509 q of the said Code, the placement at the disposal of the
authorities remains in force as long as there is no final
decision on the request for prolongation, the applicant's
argument must be rejected, even though it would have been
desirable to deal with the request for prolongation before
24 November 1992."
RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
According to Section 37 a of the Penal Code (Wetboek van
Strafrecht) an accused who, when committing an offence, suffered from
a mental deficiency or derangement can, on certain specified
conditions, be placed at the disposal of the authorities. Section 37 b
provides that the judge can decide that such a person shall receive
treatment which, according to Sections 37 c and 37 d, can be provided
in various public or private institutions.
According to Section 38 d of the Penal Code, the initial
placement at the disposal of the authorities shall be for a period of
two years, which may be prolonged, at the request of the public
prosecutor, for further periods of one or two years.
The prolongation procedure is regulated by Sections 509 o to
509 u of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering).
According to Section 509 o, the public prosecutor's request for
prolongation shall be submitted at the earliest two months and at the
latest one month before the date on which the running period of
internment ends. According to Section 509 t, the Regional Court shall
decide on such a request as soon as possible and not later than two
months after the date on which the request was submitted.
It is further provided in Section 509 q of the Code of Criminal
Procedure that, as long as there is no final decision on the request
for prolongation, the placement at the disposal of the authorities
remains in force. Moreover, where the request is granted after the
date on which the placement at the disposal of the authorities would
have ended if no request for prolongation had been made, the new period
of placement shall be calculated as from that date.
COMPLAINT
The applicant alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the
Convention in that, during the period from 24 to 30 November 1992, he
remained interned in a psychiatric institution although during that
period there was no judicial decision which authorised his detention.
THE LAW
The applicant alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1)
of the Convention on the ground that there was no judicial decision
authorising his detention from 24 to 30 November 1992.
Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention provides, insofar
as relevant, as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following
cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
a. the lawful detention of a person after conviction by
a competent court;".
The Commission notes that the applicant was interned in a
psychiatric institution under a court order which expired on
24 November 1992 and that the public prosecutor had requested its
prolongation on 14 October 1992. The Regional Court, however, dealt
with the public prosecutor's request at a hearing on 30 November 1992
and it granted the request for prolongation on 7 December 1992.
According to Section 509 t of the Dutch Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Regional Court must decide on a request for prolongation
within a period of two months, and since under Section 509 o of the
same Code the public prosecutor may submit his request up to one month
before the expiry of the previous period of detention, it follows that
in some cases the Court's decision may be taken after the expiry of
that period. However, this situation has been specifically foreseen
in Section 509 q of the Code, which provides that, where there is no
final decision on a request for prolongation, the previous decision
which authorises detention remains in force.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the
applicant's detention from 24 November to 7 December 1992 was a lawful
detention satisfying the requirements of Article 5 para. 1 (a)
(Art. 5-1-a) of the Convention.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy